Causation argument (Correlation vs. Coincidence)

jsfollower

Hi guys,

Hope everyone is having a great Thanksgiving break!
I just had a quick question on Causation arguments. I know there are several ways to weaken a correlation/coincidence - causation arguments - providing a common cause that produced both the cause and the effect, showing the relationship is reversed, showing there is a problem with the sample data used, and providing alternate/competing cause.

My question is when stimulus gives a single coincidence (as opposed to correlation) as the support for causal conclusion, would it be safe to assume the answer will most likely be providing alternate/competing cause? I think I came across this concept in one of JY's videos on causations and I don't think I recall any question with coincidence-causation arguments of which the correct answer was not an alternate cause?

What do you guys think??

Thanks.

TexAgAaron

I'll give this a shot.

Depends on if the question is a strengthening or weakening question. If we are talking strengthening, then you will be looking to block an alternative theory/cause. You want that single coincidence to be the reason that the causation happens

Now on the other hand if the question is weakening, you want to undermine the relationship between the two items of interest which there are multiple ways to do it; can be an alternative theory, reverse causation, no relationship, etc.

There is a good chance that an alternative theory would be the right AC and you are correct to have that in the forefront of your mind.....but it isn't the only way the question can be right. I listed a couple of other ways that the LSAT writers can weaken that relationship.

(P.S. anyone is welcomed to fill in any gaps that I missed haha)

Hope this helps!

jsfollower

@akeegs92 said:
I'll give this a shot.

Depends on if the question is a strengthening or weakening question. If we are talking strengthening, then you will be looking to block an alternative theory/cause. You want that single coincidence to be the reason that the causation happens

Now on the other hand if the question is weakening, you want to undermine the relationship between the two items of interest which there are multiple ways to do it; can be an alternative theory, reverse causation, no relationship, etc.

There is a good chance that an alternative theory would be the right AC and you are correct to have that in the forefront of your mind.....but it isn't the only way the question can be right. I listed a couple of other ways that the LSAT writers can weaken that relationship.

(P.S. anyone is welcomed to fill in any gaps that I missed haha)

Hope this helps!

Hi!

Thank you for your response!

So, I am asking when there a coincidence is given as opposed to correlation, it seems like I've rarely seen a case where the correct answer was no relationship, reverse, or third common cause. It's almost always alternate theory whereas when a correlation is given, I have seen correct answers being reverse, alternate theory, third common cause, etc...

Sorry if this is not making sense..please let me know!

TexAgAaron

When you say a coincidence is given, is that the conclusion for the question? Or is it a premise leading up to a correlation conclusion?

Paul Caint

Hmm. I think I get the distinction you're making. Some stimuli explicitly use the word "correlation," while others just mention two things being linked - what you're saying is a "coincidence." Is that right?

If that's the case, I wouldn't say they are always alternative explanations. For example, there was one question about old people with insomnia were shown to have a low levels of a melatonin in their pineal gland. Therefore, they concluded that old people have dysfunctional pineal glands.

This was a "coincidence" in a way - they were saying that since old people had lower melatonin, then the cause must have been a dysfunctional pineal gland (which produces melatonin). In this case, there easily could have been a common cause (ex: older people eat less fruit which is needed for melatonin production, etc.)

But the right answer was that the sample was unrepresentative of population it was generalizing to. As in, it talked about old people WITH INSOMNIA, then generalized to all old people.

So I think it really depends on the question itself.